Women in Science

Women are under-represented in the "math-oriented" sciences. That means such fields as physics, chemistry, engineering, and, I suppose, math. The U.S. House of Representatives has passed legislation to fix this. John Tierney explains at the New York Times:

This proposed law, if passed by the Senate, would require the White House science adviser to oversee regular "workshops to enhance gender equity."

That ought a do it. As I am an academic, I can scarcely question the awesome power of workshops. I've been funded to attend a few of them. I can guarantee you that all of them make the world a better place. But I have a few questions.

First: why is it bad that there are more physicists with a stunted y chromosome than physicists with a couple of x chromosomes? Women are over-represented in biology and psychology. Is that a bad thing? I can't see why it would be. Of course, it doesn't exactly enhance "gender equity," unless you mean by that anything that benefits women at the expense of men.

Second: why are women under-represented in the hard sciences? In a follow-up article, Tierney considers some of the usual suspects. All the evidence suggests that women do not face significant gender bias when pursuing a career in physics or engineering. There has been evidence in the past of an aptitude gap between men and women. One study Tierney considers found

consistent evidence for biological differences in math aptitude, particularly in males' advantage in spatial ability and in their disproportionate presence at the extreme ends of the distribution curve on math tests.

But female students seem to be catching up and passing their male counterparts in math and science classes.

The real problem seems to lie in two things. One is that women have babies, and when they do they are more likely to sacrifice career for family than fathers are. That is a social fact, and it isn't clear what Congress can do about it. Academia already does more than other industries to favor working parents.

Another problem is a difference in female and male interests.

The gap in science seems due mainly to another difference between the sexes: men are more interested in working with things, while women are more interested in working with people. There's ample evidence — most recently in an analysis of surveys of more than 500,000 people — that boys and men, on average, are more interested in inanimate objects and "inorganic" subjects like math and physics and engineering, while girls and women are more drawn to life sciences, social sciences and other "organic" careers that involve people and seem to have direct social usefulness.

Perhaps, as Tierney considers, this might be due to nurture rather than nature. On the other hand, it might not. Lawrence Summers lost his job as President of Harvard because he dared to suggest that biology might be part of the reason for female preferences in science careers.

I will dare to say what he said. It might well be the case that men and women are, on average, biologically oriented to different things. It might be the case that this orientation has consequences for the distribution of sexes in the math-oriented sciences and in the non-math-oriented sciences. We should do everything we can to encourage budding scientists of both sexes to bud, but maybe then we have to let the flowers grow as they will. Whatever is wrong here, it is probably not something that Congress can fix.

Comments

[donCoyote]

That certainly wasn't the case with my daughter who has a BA in both chemistry and math and just last year received her PhD in chemistry. The work groups during her doctoral years were either 50/50 or 60/40 in favor of the women. What I found striking during those years was she was many times the only caucasian in the group and many times the only American. Even her professor was from China, albeit she did become a naturalized citizen. Unless the foreign students obtain a green card or citizenship this is an investment that will disappear when these students graduate.

[KB]

dC: thanks for the very interesting comment. No one knows what is causing such disparities, but the context you speak of is very complex. Why so many Asians and why so many Asian woman? Where are the American and Asian men? I think it likely that the range of opportunities for Chinese men and woman are greatly different.

I share your concern. I would like to keep the brain drain flowing in our favor.

[fashion murdoc]

Unblievable,it is just my own opinion.

[George Mason]

I have had similar experiences to Don's daughter. In many parts of this country and Canada I have worked with engineering firms where the majority of the staff is south Asian. I believe this is because at the secondary education level in the U.S. we no longer have the requirements for students to take courses in math and science that would lead them on the path to careers in science and engineering. As a result we have a shortage that is being filled by foreign hires.

[Donald Pay]

No, we have course requirements for math and science. The courses, however, do not cover as much material and they progress at slower rate. Also, other countries do a much better job of finding and grooming talented students, and funneling them into math/science.

My daughter, who has lived in China since 2005, tells me that one of the reasons for China's technological prowess today stems, ironically, from the Cultural Revolution. That was a time when Chinese academics, especially those in law and humanities, were shipped out to the countryside to farm, teach, etc. It devastated a generation of those academics, but it led to two important developments. The level of teaching in the provinces was raised significantly. And the children of these displaced academics grew up realizing that math, science and engineering were areas where there was less chance of running into ideological difficulties than, for instance, law. That is one reason why China now has a lot of engineers and scientists in top positions.

I have worked in research labs in the 1970s, and you really do have to be dedicated to the work. It used to be a male-dominated world, but that started changing in the 70s. The professional societies and top labs lagged somewhat, but it's pretty equal now. Without Rosalind Franklin, Watson and Crick wouldn't have gotten their Nobel Prize.

[Donald Pay]

No, we have course requirements for math and science. The courses, however, do not cover as much material and they progress at slower rate. Also, other countries do a much better job of finding and grooming talented students, and funneling them into math/science.

My daughter, who has lived in China since 2005, tells me that one of the reasons for China's technological prowess today stems, ironically, from the Cultural Revolution. That was a time when Chinese academics, especially those in law and humanities, were shipped out to the countryside to farm, teach, etc. It devastated a generation of those academics, but it led to two important developments. The level of teaching in the provinces was raised significantly. And the children of these displaced academics grew up realizing that math, science and engineering were areas where there was less chance of running into ideological difficulties than, for instance, law. That is one reason why China now has a lot of engineers and scientists in top positions.

I have worked in research labs in the 1970s, and you really do have to be dedicated to the work. It used to be a male-dominated world, but that started changing in the 70s. The professional societies and top labs lagged somewhat, but it's pretty equal now. Without Rosalind Franklin, Watson and Crick wouldn't have gotten their Nobel Prize.

[denature]

Tierney didn't mention that studies finding math gender gaps apply to the U.S. In countries with more gender equal cultural norms, there is no evidence of a difference.

He also intimates that a failure to see the gap continue to close in recent years provides evidence for innate gender differences. This is not the case. A number of studies on U.S. students continue to support cultural causes (particularly the environment in grade schools).

His postulating that a gap at the high tail of an aptitude test is a predictor for future gender inequity in science is made up without any supporting evidence.